Jump to content

2021 NHL Offseason


Trizzak
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I don’t get GM’s. This is why I hate the cap system. Other than Tampa, no one actually uses their leverage provided by the CBA. Everyone’s been in dire straits about a flat cap, no revenue, and impact of COVID. Yet that GM’s are handing out money like candy during the last hour of Halloween, when you discover you have more candy than you need. It’s stupid. 
I look at the Avs. They absolutely should have signed Makar long term. But what the fxck??? 6 year deal??? I’ve got no issues what they are paying Makar, but I think the hell wouldn’t you sign him for 8 years, if you are paying him for 5 more RFA years???  If a player is only willing to do 6 years, force him to take less. 

And that was one of the better contracts!!!!!  I look at Calgary’s signings, and even though I’m glad at their stupidity (I hate the flames), I can’t believe how dumb they were.


even Seattle. Francis talks about the importance of cap space, and than overpays for some players as well. He also signs Gruebar. Given the options in the expansion draft, he shouldn’t have needed to sign a goalie via free agency. Frankly, I think, he may as well just picked Price. Would have been better for marketing, and potentially higher reward, with less risk, given that Gruebar doesn’t have a long track record of success. 
 

 

I’m with you on stupid GMs. That said, I don’t blame the cap system for that stupidity. It’s up to GMs to work the system intelligently. They seemed to do so last year, more or less, but now they are back to being bumbling jabbernowls. 

 

My view is, the league was much worse without the cap. A handful of teams used to vacuum up all the UFAs. The cap creates a system wherein most or all teams can compete, and rewards teams that draft and develop properly and practice sound fiscal management and strategic thinking. I wouldn’t get rid of it, that’s for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I’m with you on stupid GMs. That said, I don’t blame the cap system for that stupidity. It’s up to GMs to work the system intelligently. They seemed to do so last year, more or less, but now they are back to being bumbling jabbernowls. 

 

My view is, the league was much worse without the cap. A handful of teams used to vacuum up all the UFAs. The cap creates a system wherein most or all teams can compete, and rewards teams that draft and develop properly and practice sound fiscal management and strategic thinking. I wouldn’t get rid of it, that’s for sure.

I’d be fine with a cap, but here’s the issues I have with it:

1) the top players should be paid a LOT more than grunts. There should be a LOT bigger disparity between what is paid to Crosby, than what Coleman just got.

2)  just because a team as cap space, you have mediocre players making a ridiculous amount of money. It’s messed up when 3rd liners are getting $5m, or guys like Skinner get $8m.

3) stupid contracts by one team impacts the whole league when it come to arbitration.

4) front loading contracts is seen as cap circumvention, and teams like Vancouver are punished (as would Nashville for MATCHING the Weber offer sheet, if Weber did retire). On the other hand, you can trade for players on LTIR to get cap space.

5) salary retention is allowed. Kind of defeats the purpose of a cap, if you can trade for players and have the other team retain salary

6) tax differences - not a level playing field in how much a team has to pay a player, when teams no tax states, can use less cap room, but attract players by giving them the same, or even more take home salary. Granted, there are still badly run teams, who aren’t able to exploit the economic advantage they have because of how incompetently run the organization is.

7) to reach the cap floor, teams can acquire a players, whose actual salary is a lot less than their cap hit. Usually the players are washed up, so lousy teams stay lousy,  but tech the cap floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DON said:

https://www.habsworld.net/2021/08/assessing-the-depth-centres-7/

 

seems pretty SENSIBLE break down, not sure if taboo to quote home page here, but WTF.:gohabsgo:

not taboo at all!

 

After reading it, I thought that following the evolution of some prospects in the ECHL (Hillis for example) will be interesting

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cannon fodder, Chair à cannon ? Or, ECHL prospects? no french names, so I doubt. But...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following the news that the NHL has approved the sale of sweater ads for the 2022-23 season:

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what, the fourth or fifth arena crisis for the Coyotes so far since they've been in Glendale?  Eventually, they're not going to be able to keep getting out of it; not paying their bills isn't helping either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DON said:

Time to move to Hamilton or Hogtown perhaps?

 

 

I'll go with Houston

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GHT120 said:

I'll go with Houston

Sounds good, it is 5th largest US city (caveat wikistat) 4th most populous cities in US, seems much better, Glendale 88th (higher than i would of guessed but still).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2021 at 10:18 PM, DON said:

Sounds good, it is 5th largest US city (caveat wikistat) 4th most populous cities in US, seems much better, Glendale 88th (higher than i would of guessed but still).

Glendale is like Etobicoke, though, it's really part of Phoenix and not far from downtown. The problem with Coyotes is not the small size of the (potential) market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2021 at 7:32 PM, GHT120 said:

I'll go with Houston

If the franchise moves. And that's a big if. If they do move, Quebec City might be in with a chance.

 

But Bettman and the owners have been keen on continuing US expansion so Houston might be more likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

Glendale is like Etobicoke, though, it's really part of Phoenix and not far from downtown. The problem with Coyotes is not the small size of the (potential) market.

 

Yeah. Glendale is just a suburb of Phoenix, which is the 11th largest metropolitan area in the US. They just gave the Coyotes and Cardinals a better deal to build facilities than the city of Phoenix itself did.

 

It will be interesting to see if anything actually comes of this or if it is just another empty threat. They seem to have similar issues with the city every few years. Is the city really finally done with the team?

 

If this really is the end for Glendale, are there any real options to stay in the Phoenix area? From what I understand, the Suns' arena where they started out was even worse for hockey than where the Isles played in Brooklyn. I've always said that you should give a city long enough for kids to grow up with NHL hockey who can grow into season ticket holders. The Coyotes have been there long enough that if they haven't grown a fan base that can allow the team to thrive, it isn't going to happen. It's hard. To imagine Phoenix or any other suburb building them a new arena.

 

You can be sure the league will want to keep the team in the US. So Houston has to be the top option. 5th largest metro area and far enough away from Dallas that the Stars shouldn't be upset about another team in the state. They've tried twice already in Atlanta (9th), so they're out. San Francisco (12th) is too close to San Jose, plus they couldn't even agree with the 49ers on a stadium and they now play practically in San Jose themselves. The "Inland Empire" (13th) is practically just an extension of LA and they don't need another team. Baltimore (20th) is too close to D.C.  That leaves only San Diego (17th) as the largest city without a team. Does California really need another team? Losing their NFL team is certainly not a great sign.

 

In Canada, it's hard not to give consideration to Quebec City. The Jets have done very well, as fast as I know, since coming back to Winnipeg and they even have one of the smaller arenas in the league, if not the smallest. If it's working for them in the cap era, you would have to think it could work in Quebec City again. The only way I see Hamilton ever getting a team is if the Pegulas move the Sabres across the border.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I hear is that this is really just a bargaining ploy by the arena to extract more $$$ from the team.

 

I’ve kinda given up on the NHL ever moving out of that disaster of a market. They seem to have a religious fixation on not moving the team (even though they were happy as clams to strip Canadian cities of beloved franchises in the 1990s, when it comes to failed teams in the American south, oh noooo, stability is sacred).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

What I hear is that this is really just a bargaining ploy by the arena to extract more $$$ from the team.

 

I’ve kinda given up on the NHL ever moving out of that disaster of a market. They seem to have a religious fixation on not moving the team (even though they were happy as clams to strip Canadian cities of beloved franchises in the 1990s, when it comes to failed teams in the American south, oh noooo, stability is sacred).

 

If anything, I think it's a ploy to get them to pay up the millions they're still owed by the team as the Coyotes are well behind on their payments to them (even after the city forgave some of the 2020 costs due to the pandemic).  The team appears to be operating with the strategy of don't pay bills, try to negotiate a lesser settlement, and threaten to get lawyers involved if the other side doesn't agree.  Glendale appears to have had enough of being stuck in that type of arrangement but if the team paid their bills to them, they probably be more open to working out another short-term extension while they investigate the Tempe option.

 

Edit: Looking into this a bit more, the expectation seems to be that Glendale wants a long-term extension to help pay off the rest of the bond financing and for the Tempe option to go away entirely.  If true, that's an interesting approach to try to accomplish that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the athletic 2018 redraft put KK at 10

 

10Edmonton Oilers: C Jesperi Kotkaniemi
Actual draft pick: No. 3 (change: -7) to Montreal
My final ranking: No. 9 (change: -1)

Late in the 2017-2018 season, as the draft approached, Kotkaniemi emerged as a top-five guy in many scouting circles (though he was sixth on NHL Central Scouting’s final ranking of the draft’s top European players, he was fifth by the time Bob McKenzie’s final scouting survey dropped). The way it played out relative to my board was a little ironic because I was much higher on him than most for much of that draft year (he was 13th on my preliminary list when he wasn’t in that range almost anywhere else publicly and he was 11th on my midseason list, when I went as far as to call him my favorite prospect in the draft and when he was ranked ninth in Europe by NHL Central Scouting) but I finished the year as a big opponent of him as high as third. That was because he looked too much like a good player to me, and not enough like the kind of first-line player teams should be targeting that high. In hindsight, I think I settled in about the right place all along. He’s a good player who is still finding ways to consistently be that guy, which is fine at his age. He was probably taken too high and probably rushed, though, and he’s not going to be a great player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THe athletic puts Habs as having 7th worst off season change amd i think 1st prediction i heard puts Habs as likely to finsish 23rd.

So, big underdogs once again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DON said:

the athletic 2018 redraft put KK at 10

 

10Edmonton Oilers: C Jesperi Kotkaniemi
Actual draft pick: No. 3 (change: -7) to Montreal
My final ranking: No. 9 (change: -1)

Late in the 2017-2018 season, as the draft approached, Kotkaniemi emerged as a top-five guy in many scouting circles (though he was sixth on NHL Central Scouting’s final ranking of the draft’s top European players, he was fifth by the time Bob McKenzie’s final scouting survey dropped). The way it played out relative to my board was a little ironic because I was much higher on him than most for much of that draft year (he was 13th on my preliminary list when he wasn’t in that range almost anywhere else publicly and he was 11th on my midseason list, when I went as far as to call him my favorite prospect in the draft and when he was ranked ninth in Europe by NHL Central Scouting) but I finished the year as a big opponent of him as high as third. That was because he looked too much like a good player to me, and not enough like the kind of first-line player teams should be targeting that high. In hindsight, I think I settled in about the right place all along. He’s a good player who is still finding ways to consistently be that guy, which is fine at his age. He was probably taken too high and probably rushed, though, and he’s not going to be a great player.

 

Wheeler eh?!

a Defenseman for the Habs when they needed a center :popcorn:

 

sure, hindsight is 20/20 (the point of the article), I am still happy with that pick

Edited by alfredoh2009
corrected pick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DON said:

THe athletic puts Habs as having 7th worst off season change amd i think 1st prediction i heard puts Habs as likely to finsish 23rd.

So, big underdogs once again.

they'll finish 12th to 15th and squeak in to the playoffs if they get the max out of the roster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

 

Wheeler eh?!

a Defenseman for the Habs when they needed a center :popcorn:

 

sure, hindsight is 20/20 (the point of the article), I am still happy with that pick

 

If he becomes an effective #2C, then sure. 

 

That said, we could have had Quinn Hughes, a legit #1 d-man, which is a piece the Habs needed organizationally (and continue to need) just as much as a C. If we could have a re-do, there is absolutely no question that I’d pick Hughes.

 

Other than Hughes, Brady Tkachuk is the other obvious missed opportunity. That said, C and D are more valuable positions than W, so I am less certain that a KK who becomes a 50-point 2nd-line C is vastly worse than a 60-point Tkachuk. 

 

The piece is quite right that the Habs rushed KK’s development and it remains an open question whether he will, in fact, evolve into a rangy, physical, effective #2C or whether he will top out as 3rd liner (Lars Eller Redux). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DON said:

THe athletic puts Habs as having 7th worst off season change amd i think 1st prediction i heard puts Habs as likely to finsish 23rd.

So, big underdogs once again.

 

The Habs may take a step back this year which is not the end of the world.  Not easy to replace a Weber or a Danault without sacrificing your future. Let the kids develop and may be we take 2 steps forward the following year or may the kids have a great year and we don't take a step back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • tomh009 unpinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...